Set against a majestic French montane backdrop, the film follows continuing exploration of Chauvet cave, an mesmerisingly beautiful cave in itself but which also contains the earliest known cave paintings some 33000 years old predating the second oldest by about 15000 years.

If you go out birding looking to get in touch with nature and seek personal spiritual enlightenment rather than simply accumulating a list this film really is a must see. Also I can now say I have actually watched a 3D movie! A comparison with Picasso seems appropriate in that these etchings are surely one of the greatest works of art ever produced. Sinewy shapes of Bison, Horse and Lion adorn the walls, masterfully in unison with the contours of the walls themselves. Herzog subtly interweaves his own probing commentary with the main players involved in the discovery of the cave. As you glimpse the shapes through the flickering torches of the archeologists on one level it seems clear that these paintings are indicative of a deep spiritual connection with the animals but on another they are so shrouded in the mystery of time that their secrets should be celebrated.

Herzog throws up so many questions about what is is to be human and whether this marked the advent of one of the very first creative movements that it is impossible not to think of ‘the cave’ also on metaphorical terms. Whether this is in a Platonic sense or a comment on our own personal darkness (and light) viewing from this angle adds further depth to the drama.

The final scene involves classic Herzogian ambiguity but we are left with a choice regarding identification – which primeval beast do we most see ourselves as, or are willing to transcend ourselves into?

I’ll reveal myself as a bit of a film buff and certainly saw some brilliant ones this year, two of which rank highly as best ones I’ve ever seen. You may notice that only one of these films actually came out this year – well thats because I live in a totally backwards part of the world and films are seen either during very infrequent visits to the cinema or thorugh the excellent lovefilm and film4od websites.

5. Limitless

After seeing Moon I was very excited about Source Code, but maybe I overhyped it, didn’t quite live up to expectations, so my blockbuster of the year goes to this ingenious and fast-paced little gem. After a few ‘interesting’ years living on the coast I could relate to the lead character who is able to completely open up his mind so that perception is complete. The stockmarket whizz kid theme also harks back to my favourite film of all time Pi. Bradley Cooper is a revelation and De Niro is back on form. And the bit where he finds himself on a bridge in torn clothes having no relocation of what he got up to in the last 48 hours… We’ve all been there surely!

Lumped together because of their similarities – two French films about a chap who’s wife gets abducted, who is then in line to be framed and who as to associate with the bad guys to win her back. The two films can be seen as very similar but what shines through in both is that at the moment the French are making good honest crime thrillers like no other. If you want your slice of Bourne type action this year look no further, but please don’t wait for the inevitable hollywood remakes

Made for next to nothing, Monsters is not your typical alien/monster movie by any means, in fact it has been argued that it could have been possible to make the movie without any monsters in it at all. It is much more a road trip/will they won’t they character study but the moment the monsters appear should appeal to anyone interested in animal interaction or who appreciates that animal behaviour is almost always interrupted by human intervention.

Given the utterly misleading moniker of ‘the Australian Goodfella’s’ this is one dark movie but with brilliant central performances and a disturbing social backdrop. The opening scene of a son having to call medics about his overdosing mother but being unable to pull himself away from Deal or No Deal sets the tone immediately. The underlying theme of members of a pride constantly being in the process of usurping each other in order to reach the top of the pack is subtly played out.

The best movie set in the clink bar none and that includes you Mr Shawshank. After about 20 minutes the premise of the movie, kill or be killed is laid out loud and clear. In some ways the film can simply be seen as a rites of passage in a similar way to the Godfather trilogy. For me though what set it apart was the extraordinary supernatural element that gently underplays the moments of brutality. Spiritual and amoral and utterly essential.

Nipped down to Cley on Monday as it would be only the third time I would have seen the Western Sandpiper. To begin with was in the kind of mood where I didn’t want to ID anything, just went out with bins and walking along the bank, Gulls were gulls, waders, waders – it was kind of mellow but as I got into Dawkes the day took on a larger significance.

The Dawkes Hide was full and brimming with birders all armed to with the latest camera equipment. As I squeezed into a little corner I was delighted to be joined by Bryan Bland who I hadn’t seen for some time. For anyone who doesn’t know Bryan, in a nutshell he looks a little bit like God or perhaps how you would imagine Pythons Brian to look when he was older. I’ve found that with these slightly reverred figures of Norfolk birding the best ploy is to keep your mouth shut and they will start talking to you. And so it was, Bryan had recently returned from India and this was only the second time he had seen the Western. I was able to fill him in on the whole epic tale – the ID initially of Semi-P followed by the reID, the twists and turns that the online discussion had taken, the significance that this was a first for Norfolk. Brian in turn told me the full story about Felixstowe, Rainham and the whole past history that has now become associated with this bird. And talking to him, the experience of the birding scene he’s had over the last 50 – 60 years and the birds he’s seen, when you think about it its overwhelming. And all this hunkered down against a barrage of clicking cameras denoting a new age of digital birding that neither of us could quite get our heads around.

Brian had to shuffle off for pee but he was almost immediately replaced by Mark Golley who emerged from Avocet Hide (or whatever the hide on the left of the three is called). Mark is only about a third of a generation ahead of me and the conversation was much more focussed around the continual search for finding good birds and the way that decyphering birds movements is becoming increasingly difficult. We both agreed that modern birding should as much about embracing randomness than attempting to discern obvious migration patterns, but yet both of us still resist the relentless march of the digital age. Then, on a crystal clear, mild December day it was utterly bizarre to be watching streams of Geese coming over (including a flock of 13 Beans) since the reason they are here is an utter mystery. Also reassuring to hear that the area South of the A149 seems to represent a dividing line for a lot of arriving migrants, but since this represents the periphery of both our birding patches, the infrequent finds you can make in these areas provide far greater satisfaction that pulling something out of the bag in the heart of the melee.

So it seems as if the ID of this bird will run and run, the majority seem happy that it is a Western but there are still a certain amount of people who are still very dubious about the true nature of the bird.

Over the course of the last couple of weeks I’ve come to some interesting conclusions and its maybe this process rather than the bird itself that has been the most fascinating. I have to say that perceiving this bird with my own eyes my impression is of a very straightforward Western and I know others who also cannot see any difficulty with the ID. How can this then tally with those are a barely able to see a pro-Western characteristic!? I believe the answer lies not in the bird itself but our perception of it. This is not a question of expertise but confirmation that we all see things in slightly different ways. For instance there has been great debate over whether the scapular patterning is concave or convex, but what do these terms mean, someone with a large perspex sheet can create concave and convex shapes in rapid succession one merging into the other so where do the boundaries of concave and convex meet and when does one become the other?

Perhaps how we perceive can be attributed down to really some of the simplest, most basic things. IDing birds is very much like playing spot the difference and perhaps a real skill for spot of the difference as a kid makes you are a more astute observer than someone with a massive scientific background!

This then leads to the point that if myself and many of the original finders are able to see the Western characteristics but others are still not completely sure can we conclude that each individual can never truly come from an objective viewpoint and it is always sensible never to truly trust the ego that lies in all of us that keeps on saying ‘I know what is right’.

And in turn is it such a bad thing that a unanimous conclusion has not been reached about this bird? As someone who has foregone the pressurized and competitive side of birding, i.e. not chosing to list, I love it when things remain unresolved and shrouded in mystery. Nature is such that there will always be elements of it that can’t be fit into boxes and categorised entirely. Not only that but if these little blighters keep on turning up and presenting us with such glorious ID challenges that enhance our understanding of ourselves and help us to respect the views of others than that can only be a good thing.